Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

03-01-2021 10:34PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

Do you honestly want it to be?

The lines people draw around what is unacceptable hate speech and what is frank and robust belief are always going to be contested.

Gatling · 03-01-2021 11:24PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

It could be only for a number of people trying to dictate what can and can't be discussed without their permission and list of words they don't like.

None of which are admins

04-01-2021 01:09AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

I dunno. Do you thing the LGBT forum is a place where people are allowed question views and multiple views are allowed to be debated robustly?

How many safe spaces do you want Joey?

Invidious · 04-01-2021 08:42AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

Yes, I do. As opposed to the "anyone who disagrees with the politically correct stance will be banned" ambiance of certain other forums on Boards.

You're free to participate in discussions on CA ... as long as you can tolerate other posters disagreeing with you. That's the very definition of robust debate.

EmmetSpiceland · 04-01-2021 11:55AM

Gatling wrote: »

It could be only for a number of people trying to dictate what can and can't be discussed without their permission and list of words they don't like.

None of which are admins

I, personally, think the problem there is that you have a small number of users who think the usual “standards” from across the site apply to CA. Which they don’t and nor should they.

Maybe this needs to be addressed, more prominently, in the charter? To be honest, it would suit the place better to do away with cards, bans and thread bans for all but the more serious “attacks”.

This would, hopefully, lead to less contamination of normal forums, like AH. The longer threads like the ‘Wokeism of the Day’ or the ‘Onlyfans’ threads are left in AH, with posts calling for “leftists” to be thrown into a “ghetto” with, albeit implied, black people to be “cannibalised” really have no place in AH and they really do create quite a nasty, and hateful, atmosphere.

Threads, such as these, would thrive in “Current Affairs”. Especially one with a “lighter touch” moderation. The “regulars” could get it all out, could actually be, somewhat, therapeutic for them.

04-01-2021 12:21PM

I count 8 times that they were used there in a redundant fashion.

Annasopra · 04-01-2021 05:02PM

Invidious wrote: »

Yes, I do. As opposed to the "anyone who disagrees with the politically correct stance will be banned" ambiance of certain other forums on Boards.

You're free to participate in discussions on CA ... as long as you can tolerate other posters disagreeing with you. That's the very definition of robust debate.

I do participate from time to time but get shouted down. It really isnt a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly". When the lies and fake news about George Nkencho were challenged there was absolutely no attempt to discuss theses issues robustly frankly or openly. And today all we can see there is Mysogynist Racist ranting about Hazel Chu.

osarusan · 04-01-2021 05:26PM

People spewing shyte in the knowledge they'll never have to back any of it up is in no way any form of frank or open or robust debate, and pretty much means that the debates that are taking place get drowned in that shyte.

Quantum Erasure · 04-01-2021 05:37PM

And today all we can see there is Mysogynist Racist ranting about Hazel Chu.

didn't see anything misogynist there, did learn that 'chinaman' is apparently racist though, I thought it was just a term that had fallen out of favour, like black, then coloured, then person of colour, and I think we're back at black again....

Annasopra · 04-01-2021 05:44PM

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

didn't see anything misogynist there, did learn that 'chinaman' is apparently racist though, I thought it was just a term that had fallen out of favour, like black, then coloured, then person of colour, and I think we're back at black again....

Comments about her weight are mysogynist

Quantum Erasure · 04-01-2021 05:52PM

Are comments about height misandrist?

EmmetSpiceland · 04-01-2021 05:57PM

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

didn't see anything misogynist there, did learn that 'chinaman' is apparently racist though, I thought it was just a term that had fallen out of favour, like black, then coloured, then person of colour, and I think we're back at black again....

If ‘The Big Lebowski’ taught us anything, it’s that Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.

04-01-2021 06:00PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I do participate from time to time but get shouted down. It really isnt a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly". When the lies and fake news about George Nkencho were challenged there was absolutely no attempt to discuss theses issues robustly frankly or openly.

No, you post with gaps in logic and truth and then fail to respond when addressed on these. It's hit and run stuff. You get called out on your own untruths, that I've seen, but doesn't mean you're being shouted down.

If you're going to call out the userbase for being dishonest and not open, you should get your own house in order first.

04-01-2021 06:04PM

osarusan wrote: »

People spewing shyte in the knowledge they'll never have to back any of it up is in no way any form of frank or open or robust debate, and pretty much means that the debates that are taking place get drowned in that shyte.

And being very honest, it happens across the spectrum. For example, in the George Nkencho thread you had people stating for a fact that the deceased has x amount of convictions and was out on bail yet never backed it up despite being requested to do so regularly. On the other hand, you had claims of definite racism from AGS which, again, was never backed up. It's ignorance at best and sinister at worst.

Beasty · 04-01-2021 06:05PM

This is getting way too personal

Discuss the forum, not individual users

Posters are entitled to mention their personal views and issues

However that is not a reason for others to discuss a user rather than the issues raised by the user

Beasty · 04-01-2021 06:10PM

Omackeral wrote: »

And being very honest, it happens across the spectrum. For example, in the George Nkencho thread you had people stating for a fact that the deceased has x amount of convictions and was out on bail yet never backed it up despite being requested to do so regularly. On the other hand, you had claims of definite racism from AGS which, again, was never backed up. It's ignorance at best and sinister at worst.

The "convictions" issue was addressed by a mod (me) and an instruction issued not to make such claims without a verifiable source

The issue of what constitutes "racism" is much more subjective. However in this particular case I have seen no-one posting anything that would support any views of racism against AGS. If a public figure makes such a claim then of course it's possible to discuss those allegations, but again, having spent a lot of time in that thread, I have seen absolutely nothing that would support any allegations of racism against AGS

If posters are making such claims, beyond repeating and discussing what such public figures (or indeed family members of the deceased) have said, please report and we will have a look

Discodog · 04-01-2021 06:31PM

Beasty wrote: »

The "convictions" issue was addressed by a mod (me) and an instruction issued not to make such claims without a verifiable source

The issue of what constitutes "racism" is much more subjective. However in this particular case I have seen no-one posting anything that would support any views of racism against AGS. If a public figure makes such a claim then of course it's possible to discuss those allegations, but again, having spent a lot of time in that thread, I have seen absolutely nothing that would support any allegations of racism against AGS

If posters are making such claims, beyond repeating and discussing what such public figures (or indeed family members of the deceased) have said, please report and we will have a look

Just for clarification what constitutes a verifiable source ?

Invidious · 04-01-2021 06:44PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I do participate from time to time but get shouted down. It really isnt a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

You acknowledge that you're free to express your views in CA/IMHO ... but you don't want to because other posters can disagree with you and state contrary views, which you interpret as being shouted down.

Robust, frank, and open debate cannot take place in forums from which anyone holding "incorrect" views is swiftly banned. So that leaves CA/IMHO as the main remaining arena on Boards for anything approximating free speech. You don't have to agree with everything that is posted there — but the essence of free speech is tolerating people's right to hold opinions that others find distasteful.

osarusan · 04-01-2021 06:48PM

Omackeral wrote: »

And being very honest, it happens across the spectrum. For example, in the George Nkencho thread you had people stating for a fact that the deceased has x amount of convictions and was out on bail yet never backed it up despite being requested to do so regularly. On the other hand, you had claims of definite racism from AGS which, again, was never backed up. It's ignorance at best and sinister at worst.

Agreed, it happens across the spectrum, and goes on far too much and for far too long.

For a website whose abiding motto is "Don't be a dick", it tolerates an astonishing amount of utter dickishness.

EmmetSpiceland · 04-01-2021 06:52PM

Discodog wrote: »

Just for clarification what constitutes a verifiable source ?

By the looks of it, Twitter is fine but the Irish Times is not.

Discodog · 04-01-2021 06:58PM

Invidious wrote: »

You acknowledge that you're free to express your views in CA/IMHO ... but you don't want to because other posters can disagree with you and state contrary views, which you interpret as being shouted down.

Robust, frank, and open debate cannot take place in forums from which anyone holding "incorrect" views is swiftly banned. So that leaves CA/IMHO as the main remaining arena on Boards for anything approximating free speech. You don't have to agree with everything that is posted there — but the essence of free speech is tolerating people's right to hold opinions that others find distasteful.

CA is the only area where one can discuss current affairs. So there is a choice. Tolerate the way that posters in CA are allowed to express their opinion or don't discuss current affairs.

Why can't we have CA with no rules, for those that want it & CA with firm rules for those that want it ?

Annasopra · 04-01-2021 07:11PM

Invidious wrote: »

Robust, frank, and open debate cannot take place in forums from which anyone holding "incorrect" views is swiftly banned. So that leaves CA/IMHO as the main remaining arena on Boards for anything approximating free speech. You don't have to agree with everything that is posted there — but the essence of free speech is tolerating people's right to hold opinions that others find distasteful.

You appear to be advocating that a number of recently banned users who were racist should be unbanned. Sorry no. A racist free for all isnt robust frank or honest. The idea that some of the CA forum is merely "distasteful" and not outright racist is frankly laughable and absurd.

Sir Oxman · 04-01-2021 08:22PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You appear to be advocating that a number of recently banned users who were racist should be unbanned. Sorry no. A racist free for all isnt robust frank or honest. The idea that some of the CA forum is merely "distasteful" and not outright racist is frankly laughable and absurd.

Where on earth did that poster say that?
Sheesh.

Sir Oxman · 04-01-2021 08:25PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

By the looks of it, Twitter is fine but the Irish Times is not.

Twitter from unverified accounts is not fine. And memes. And unverified whatsapp etc messages. From anyone.
Politicians (or any verified public figure/organisation) own words typed by their own fingers are fine. They are their own words and views and pretty much a solid source to dissect and debate.

The Irish Times and other media is fine if they actually report factually and completely and impartially.

04-01-2021 08:56PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You appear to be advocating that a number of recently banned users who were racist should be unbanned. Sorry no. A racist free for all isnt robust frank or honest. The idea that some of the CA forum is merely "distasteful" and not outright racist is frankly laughable and absurd.

You will struggle to see a lazier "so you're a -ist then" response to a point this year, and it only 4th Jan

Beasty · 04-01-2021 10:18PM

Discodog wrote: »

Just for clarification what constitutes a verifiable source ?

I think you need to adopt a common sense approach

If something is stated in the mainstream press, or an official press release from a relevant authority that would constitute verified information.

If someone sees something on Social Media (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and the like, including this site), or hears a rumour, or speaks to someone directly involved, none of that is verified or verifiable.

Smee_Again · 04-01-2021 10:23PM

Beasty wrote: »

I think you need to adopt a common sense approach

If something is stated in the mainstream press, or an official press release from a relevant authority that would constitute verified information.

If someone sees something on Social Media (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and the like, including this site), or hears a rumour, or speaks to someone directly involved, none of that is verified or verifiable.

Secondary sources should just be banned, it’s a current affairs forum if a poster can’t find a primary source to back up their claims they shouldn’t be making the claim.

Overheal · 04-01-2021 10:27PM

Smee_Again wrote: »

Secondary sources should just be banned, it’s a current affairs forum if a poster can’t find a primary source to back up their claims they shouldn’t be making the claim.

Politics Cafe already failed as an experiment.

osarusan · 04-01-2021 10:51PM

I don't see the point of the discussion about sources anyway.

CA has no rule requiring posters to source or otherwise back up anything they say*.

It's this freedom to make any claim whatsover that causes so many problems.

*I've seen a poster be required by a mod to quote something they accuse other posters of having said, but that's within boards, not outside sources.

04-01-2021 10:52PM

I think it's abundantly clear that there's a cohort of posters that don't think certain topics should be discussed at all if they can't control the outcome.

That's where you see ridiculously high bars being posited for what is essentially a conversation.

It's not a bit genuine imo that anyone could demand citation in a current affairs forum.

I cannot understand why posters cannot just live with others disagreeing with them, tbh. That's the world out there, folks. Boards shouldn't be sanitized from it beyond covering their legal obligations and keeping the conversations from genuine chaos and ugliness, which is a line I think they draw pretty well.